Talk:TOS Season 1 performers
White Rabbit White Rabbit should be changed to "White rabbit|White Rabbit" so that viewers can be directed to the existing article. --Shran 07:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Feel free to do so on any occasion -- you can start by clicking the "edit" tab -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: The edit tab is not available because the admins had prevented the list from being edited after I was done completing it. In any case, the problem has been fixed now. --Shran 03:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::: Nevermind, I see you've unprotected it. Many thanks. --Shran 03:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Apparently, this page was protected in error -- no admin has logged a reason for protecting this page on Memory Alpha:Protected page or a corresponsing talk page, as policy states should occur at the time of protection. I've opened it up again. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: I protected it because of the ~30 edits in a 24 hour period, many of which occurred after I had placed a notice about constant edits, and that notice was subsequently removed. I'm quite sure I put a note in the summary when I did it, but I dont see it in the history. Nevertheless, I was not aware there was a boilerplate for the protection. --Gvsualan 04:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Ah, yes, it was noted in the protection log: "This page has had ~30 edits in a 24 hour period. User ignored and removed "constant edit" notice". --Gvsualan 04:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::: That was probably my fault. Since my computer has a tendency to freeze up with little or no reason, I frequenly copied and pasted the work to a Word document as a safety measure. With the constant editing, copying, and pasting, I may have cut it out of the document, or I may have seen it and figured I could just slow down the editing and then removed it. This was before I made a habit of using the "show preview" button, which I have now grown accustomed to doing, so constant edits on one page shouldn't be as much of problem with me now, and I'll try to keep it that way. :) --Shran 07:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Uncredited issues We often see (uncredited) in lists of performers alongside a character they have allegedly played. Should we not indicate from where that information originated. Else this sort of information can be added to almost any of the performers' lists or even new entries created of entirely fictitious positions played by anyone, anywhere? I, for one, would like to know. --AussieVic 01:33, October 31, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, we do have a policy of citing sources. There are still many entries that still need ciations, however. If you see a dubious statement, you can add an (for a single statement, or paragraph) or (if the entire page or section needs citations). :In this case, it would be best to focus on having the citations on the individual pages for the performers and the roles themselves.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:44, October 31, 2011 (UTC)